XXXth Olympiad - London

[Angel4576]

The Eu usually gets used as a scapegoat for all kinds of unpleasant policies by politicians in all EU countries and the media doesn't do a very good job of informing the public about what the EU does or doesn't and why, either. So, unsurprisingly, it has a bad reputation. That's why I think it's so important to have a mature, fact-based public discourse about the advantages and disadvantages before a referendum in the UK.

I agree, but you're unlikely to get it. The vast majority of the media are Euro-sceptic.

As I said, leaving the EU would probably save the UK some money but it would also mean quite a substantial loss in influence. The electorate would have to weigh these things against each other and decide what's more important to them. However, most of the time, the rejection of the EU seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction without any consideration of the consequences.

British political influence within the EU is practically nil as it is. The only time we really exert it at all is when we wield our veto.

Rejection of the EU largely comes about due to the fact that no one here has voted to be a part of any move towards an integrated Europe. We haven't voted for any powers to be transferred to Brussels, and we certainly haven't voted on any form of integrated political or fiscal union, yet they continue on that path regardless. The only vote we've ever had on Europe was on whether or not to remain with the single market. At that time, that was the correct decision. Since then, the European project has gone far beyond the scope of what was voted for back in the 70s.

It's possible that all EU citizens will have to make similar decisions in the near future if there is a substantial push towards further integration. Given the inherent inertia of the system, I doubt it, though. But if it happens, I sincerely hope it will be an informed decision.

Further integration is inevitable - the EU as it stands will not be able to sustain itself without fiscal union. You can't really have fiscal union without political union. The Euro was always doomed to fail without fiscal union. If they insist on sticking by the Euro then fiscal union is the only way.

Britain won't go for fiscal union, it just won't happen. Britain's financial services sector is far too important to it to give up governance and control over it.

Britain will just continue to use its veto on the subject, and if it doesn't, then we get a referendum.

The chances of anything approaching a balanced 'information' cycle around the pros and cons of continued membership are very slim. The media has taken up polar extremes in terms of opinion on Europe, and our political representatives aren't much different.

 

[MacLeod]

Dissatisifaction with the EU is not soley a British problem, even citizens in countries like France (a more pro-EU country) have vote no when asked about a treaty.

So is it the case of the politicians moving faster than the populance want, or not explaining why this needs to be done. What benefits will it bring to them etc..

Countries which get more benefit out of the EU are more likely to be favour of it, whilst those get less (percieved) benefit out it are more likely to be anti EU. Of course that might not be the case Germany gets far less out of the EU budget than it pays in but is one of the more pro-EU countires.